JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have thrown a challenge to orders passed by trial Court as well as the appellate Court refusing their prayer for granting permanent exemption during the course of the trial. 4. Both the applicants along with one more accused are facing a prosecution for commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 506, 294 read with Section 34 of IPC in private Complaint No. 213/2006 pending before JMFC, Court No.5 Akola instituted upon a complaint filed by non-applicant no.1. 5. The initial application made by the applicants for permanent exemption was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2006 amongst other on the count of presence of the applicants being essential for a fair trial. The second application with the same prayer was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 3.3.2007 on the count of the previous application for such a prayer being already rejected and there being no provision for recalling the said order. The application in revision preferred by the applicants against the order dated 3.3.2007 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola vide order dated 4.9.2008. The challenge has been thrown to all the said orders by present application. The application is vehemently opposed by the non-applicant no.1. 6. Though the learned counsel for the applicants for justifying the prayer for permanent exemption has canvassed that the applicants are not disputing their identity as the accused mentioned in a complaint during the course of a trial, the applications preferred by them before the lower Court or the order passed thereon does not indicate any such statement being made on behalf of them before the trial Court. Apart from the same careful perusal of application made by them also does not indicate any case being made out by the applicants indicating that granting them exemption as prayed is unlikely to forestall expeditious progress of trial or unlikely to cause any delay at trial. 7. Apart from the same careful perusal of application made by them also does not indicate any case being made out by the applicants indicating that granting them exemption as prayed is unlikely to forestall expeditious progress of trial or unlikely to cause any delay at trial. 7. On the aforesaid backdrop and even accepting that the provisions of taking the evidence and the other proceedings at trial in presence of the accused is a provision in reality meant for benefit of the accused or unnecessary insistence for personal presence of the accused resulting him undue hardship is unwarranted as provision of Section 317 of Code of Criminal Procedure itself confers a discretion upon the trial Court of dispensing personal attendance of the accused in appropriate cases, still it cannot be gainsaid that every accused as a matter of right can seek an exemption at a trial or at least in a trial for commission of serious offences. 8. Thus while considering question of granting exemption during a particular phase of a trial the Court would be required to consider all the relevant aspects connected with the trial for judging if any case being made out by an accused for exercising a discretion in favour of granting him exemption during the course of a trial for a particular period. It will not be out of place to state that while considering the said question every trial Court is required to take due care to see that grant of an exemption is not likely to result in forestalling expeditious smooth progress of the trial. 9. Now considering the orders passed by the trial Court on the aforesaid backdrop, it is difficult to find any fault with the orders passed by either trial Court or even by Court examining orders passed by the trial Court in the revisional jurisdiction and particularly on the backdrop of failure of applicants to make a case of granting exemption to them was unlikely to forestall expeditious progress of the trial. 10. It is true that application depicts of applicant no.1 being an old aged person of 83 years of age, both the applicants are said to be suffering from the ailments and both of them are residing at a place far away from the trial Court. 10. It is true that application depicts of applicant no.1 being an old aged person of 83 years of age, both the applicants are said to be suffering from the ailments and both of them are residing at a place far away from the trial Court. However, the said factor by themselves clearly appears to be insufficient for upholding prayer for permanent exemption and particularly application preferred by them failing to reveal that grant of an exemption as prayed is unlikely to forestall expeditious progress of the trial. 11. In the aforesaid state of affairs and the orders challenged in the present application being without fault, it is difficult to accept of any case being made out for exercising inherent powers vested with this Court for the purposes as sought in the petition. Thus application sans merits deserves to be dismissed on the said count. 12. However, taking into consideration the grounds which are tried to be agitated at the hearing of this application, i.e. applicant no.1 being of 83 years of age, both of them are suffering from the ailments , themselves residing far away from the trial Court and the orders passed by the lower Court not fully revealing that all the said aspects were duly taken into consideration by the lower Court due to order passed revealing of application being rejected solely on the count of the presence of the applicants being essential for the purposes of a trial or earlier application being rejected and not giving a clue of the said aspects were also taken into consideration by the trial Court, liberty as prayed by learned counsel for the applicants deserves to be given to applicants for reapproaching trial Court for considering their prayer for exemption by making an application disclosing all the relevant facets due to which they seek exemption and foremostly the matters disclosing that grant of an exemption prayed by them is unlikely to forestall expeditious smooth progress of the trial. In the event of the applicants making such an application, the trial Court shall decide same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law and uninfluenced by the fact of such a prayer being not upheld by the trial Court at the earlier stage. 13. Rule in the above terms. 14. In view of disposal of main application, Criminal Application No. 3995 of 2008 stands dismissed.